Respect: When to Resign?

On my Twitter feed today someone linked to a piece by a young Kayden Troff from 2010 on the ChessKids.Com site. In the piece he explains when, in his opinion at that time, a player should play on as opposed to resign in a bad position. Mostly it comes down to, "If you think you can learn something from the other player's technique, or if you think you've still got some chances, play on. Else, resign."

Certainly that's not bad advice. He mentions cases in which players get annoyed or upset when someone failed to resign at the "proper" time.



And this is the point I want to address. The rules state that a player CAN resign a game. Nothing in the written rules designate WHEN a player should resign or under what conditions. The rules of the game allow a player to play the game out until mate, if necessary. It is a player's absolute right to play on to the bitter end if they so chose. Therefore, the player with the superior position simply shouldn't let it bother him if the other player decides to play on to such a conclusion.

I would add that if the position were so easy that  you believe the other player should resign, you shouldn't be stressed about playing it out. Any external factors that might cause you to get upset, such as a need for a restroom break or the chance to eat, are factors you should have anticipated in any event. You never know, when sitting down to a game, that it will take anything LESS than the maximum amount of time allotted for completion, so plan accordingly.

Recently this came up in one of my games. After a blunderific game (which I will give in detail later), the following position was reached, with White to move.

Langford - Durham, 23rd Space Coast Open

White to move after 58...Nd4-c6

I had played my move with the intention of playing 59...Kb5, 60...a6, and 61...Nxb4. However, my opponent played 59 Kb3. So naturally I played 59...Kb5 anyway, without even thinking. We both left the R@e7 hanging! Mind you, we had both played well in the tournament, this was the last round, and the outcome would decide the distribution of about $1000 for several players! Yikes!

I was winning before the double blunder, and I went on to win anyway. I could have made it a lot easier for myself by taking the rook. But I could have just as easily lost the game with some other hair-brained move.

The point is, players blunder. After the game Bill Langford told me the only reason he played on was that his friend, with whom he was car-pooling, was still playing at that point and he figured he may as well, too! No problem from my perspective!

Playing on is every player's right, and the farther down the ladder you go, the more likely you are to be rewarded by someone else's blunders. So don't get upset when it happens to you!